Political Stories
Latest Political Stories.
Congress listed Rahul Gandhi as first speaker in no-trust debate, but he declined.
.jpg)
In a surprising turn of events, confusion has enveloped the ranks of the Congress party as they grapple to understand the reasons behind Rahul Gandhi's unexpected decision not to address the Lok Sabha. Speculations abound as some insiders suggest that Gandhi's choice could stem from a desire to allow Gaurav Gogoi, a representative from the Northeast, to kickstart the debate on a no-confidence motion. Others speculate that the absence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the House might have influenced Gandhi's decision.
The unexpected move unfolded on Tuesday, catching both the Congress party and Gandhi's Lok Sabha colleagues off guard. The anticipation of Gandhi's return to Parliament had peaked the previous day, as the party readied itself for what they believed would be a riveting speech stealing the spotlight on the opening day of the debate. Notably, Gandhi's name had been slated as the first speaker, with the media prepped in advance to cover his address.
However, minutes before the debate was set to commence, Gandhi sent shockwaves through the party by informing their floor managers of his decision to abstain from initiating the discussion. The rationale behind his decision remained shrouded in mystery, leaving many within the Congress perplexed.
To address this unexpected change, the Congress's floor managers quickly communicated with Speaker Om Birla through the marshal. They conveyed that Assam MP Gaurav Gogoi, the individual who had issued the notice for the no-confidence motion, would step in to lead the debate in Gandhi's stead.
The turn of events not only surprised the party but also prompted a flurry of questions from political pundits and observers. As speculation runs rife about Gandhi's motives, the Congress party finds itself navigating this unanticipated development, with Gaurav Gogoi now poised to take the lead in what was initially meant to be Rahul Gandhi's spotlight moment.
Manipur sets up 2024 battle lines: Oppn lists Govt failures, ruling party its achievements.
As the Lok Sabha commenced the debate on the no-confidence motion this Tuesday, set in motion by the Congress and backed by the Opposition's INDIA alliance, the political landscape unfurled a tapestry of strategies aimed at shaping the narrative for the upcoming 2024 general elections.
The pretext for the motion was the Manipur situation, serving as a catalyst to urge Prime Minister Narendra Modi's participation in parliamentary discussions. However, the discourse swiftly transformed into a platform to spotlight what the Opposition collectively deemed as the BJP government's failings across multiple fronts.
While the Manipur issue held its place as a focal point, the Opposition seized the opportunity to direct attention toward a barrage of criticisms encompassing areas such as the unresolved border dispute with China, surging prices, unemployment concerns, economic management, alleged misuse of investigative agencies, challenges to federalism, women's safety, protests by wrestlers, farmer unrest, privatization endeavors, and more. It became evident that the Opposition's line of attack was carefully designed with the impending general elections looming large in their minds.
Notably absent during the debate was Prime Minister Modi himself, a conspicuous absence that did not escape the scrutiny of both the Opposition and the public. The Deputy Leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha, Gaurav Gogoi, who initiated the discussion after moving the no-confidence motion, emerged as a prominent voice during the discourse. He chose to delve into the intricacies of the Manipur situation, effectively countering the BJP's nationalist stance and offering insight into why the anti-BJP alliance adopted the moniker INDIA.
As the debate unfolded, regional parties like the Trinamool Congress, DMK, and the Samajwadi Party deviated from the central theme to highlight issues specific to their respective states. Alongside condemning the government's perceived failure to quell violence in Manipur, these parties raised pointed questions about the Prime Minister's prolonged silence spanning over 80 days, his absence from parliamentary sessions, and notably, his non-participation on the day the debate commenced. Demands for the dismissal of the N Biren Singh government underscored their dissatisfaction with the ruling dispensation.
In essence, the no-confidence motion debate served as a grand platform for the Opposition to project a unified front against the BJP government, while simultaneously aiming to resonate with voters ahead of the impending 2024 general elections.
BJD on why it is opposing no-trust motion: ‘Naveen Patnaik doesn’t believe in needless quarrels with Centre’.
In a notable intervention during the ongoing Lok Sabha debate on the Congress's no-confidence motion against the Narendra Modi government, Biju Janata Dal (BJD) MP Pinaki Misra voiced his party's opposition to the motion, citing the party's foundational stance against Congress-led initiatives.
Misra acknowledged the gravity of the events in Manipur, describing them as "heart-wrenching," but expressed the opinion that a no-confidence motion was not the appropriate response to the situation. Emphasizing the need for constructive contributions, he outlined the BJD's stance on opposing motions brought forward by the Congress due to their historic differences.
Recalling the inception of the BJD as a party that emerged in opposition to the Congress, Misra underlined that it was inherently challenging for the BJD to lend support to any motion put forth by the Congress. He elaborated that this "anti-Congressism" was deeply ingrained within the party's identity.
While addressing the issue of women's empowerment, Misra advocated for the Women's Reservation Bill, asserting that this legislative step would pave the way forward. He emphasized that the 17th Lok Sabha would be remiss if it failed to clear the Women's Reservation Bill, a measure that holds potential to significantly enhance women's representation in politics.
Pinaki Misra also offered insights into the pragmatic approach of the BJD, led by Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik. Misra highlighted Patnaik's aversion to unnecessary confrontations with the Central government, given the crucial fiscal ties that bind the states and the Union. According to Misra, incessant discord with the Centre is not conducive to the overall well-being of the state's populace, given the interdependent fiscal structure.
In essence, Pinaki Misra's participation in the debate spotlighted the BJD's stance of principled opposition to motions presented by the Congress, even in the face of pressing issues. The BJD MP's call for pragmatic collaboration and support for the Women's Reservation Bill underscored the party's commitment to constructive change while adhering to its core values.
16 hours for this no-trust motion debate, longest lasted 24 hours.
As the Lok Sabha delves into deliberations over the no-confidence motion introduced by Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi, sparked against the backdrop of the ongoing Manipur conflict, it's worth taking a historical glance at the significance of such motions in Indian parliamentary history. This marks the 28th instance of a no-confidence motion presented in the Lok Sabha since its inception in 1952. Notably, only one such motion has led to a government's dismissal, which occurred in 1979 with the Morarji Desai-led Janata Party government.
The current debate, scheduled to span 16 hours and feature 16 speakers, has been prompted by the urgency of addressing the Manipur issue. This resonates with the historical precedence of no-confidence motions being tabled during moments of national concern. The debate, set to extend until Thursday, serves as a platform for rigorous discussions and critical evaluations of the government's actions.
Reflecting on the past, it's intriguing to observe that the third and fourth Lok Sabhas witnessed the highest frequency of no-confidence motions. In the wake of India's comprehensive defeat in the 1962 war against China, a moment of national crisis, J.B. Kripalani, who transitioned from a Congress member to a critic, presented the first-ever no-confidence motion in 1963. This motion, aimed at the Jawaharlal Nehru-led government, ultimately faced defeat by a substantial margin of 285 votes — a record that still stands to this day.
Across the span of 17 Lok Sabhas since Independence, nearly all have encountered at least one no-confidence motion, exemplifying the role these motions play in holding governments accountable. This democratic mechanism, rooted in the Indian parliamentary system, has been a means for diverse political parties to express concerns, voice dissent, and scrutinize the government's actions.
Unsurprisingly, Congress governments have been at the receiving end of the most no-confidence motions, totaling 23 instances. The BJP and the Janata Party have each faced two such motions. This distribution underscores the nature of a multi-party democracy, where differing viewpoints converge within the parliamentary arena.
As the ongoing debate unfolds, it serves as a testament to the robustness of India's parliamentary democracy, allowing for open discourse on matters of national significance. The no-confidence motion remains an integral facet of this democratic framework, allowing elected representatives to fulfill their duty of holding the government accountable to the people.
Nishikant Dubey’s remarks expunged, then restored: A look at the highs, lows, and details.
In the intricate world of parliamentary proceedings, the Speaker's authority holds a unique power: the ability to expunge or restore remarks made by Members of Parliament. This privilege, though rarely exercised, plays a significant role in maintaining the decorum and integrity of parliamentary discourse.
Recent instances have brought this aspect of parliamentary functioning into the spotlight. In February, a tumultuous uproar erupted when portions of speeches made by Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge were expunged due to their contentious nature. Surprisingly, even the words of Prime Minister Narendra Modi faced expungement, a rarity in itself.
Another intriguing occurrence unfolded in the Lok Sabha when BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's comments stirred controversy. He had accused the Congress, NewsClick, and two journalists of having a connection to China "by an umbilical cord." This statement, initially expunged from the official parliamentary records, took a surprising turn when it was later restored on the House's website during the late evening hours.
The expunging and subsequent restoration of remarks from parliamentary records remain firmly within the jurisdiction of the Speaker or Presiding Officer of the House. This discretion is guided by the House rules and conventions, allowing the Speaker to wield this authority in accordance with parliamentary norms.
A parliamentary expert, knowledgeable about these proceedings, explained that while the restoration of expunged remarks is a rare occurrence, it is exclusively at the Speaker's discretion. The Speaker, in upholding the principles of unbiased governance, plays a pivotal role in ensuring that parliamentary discussions remain focused, respectful, and devoid of any inappropriate or offensive content.
Nevertheless, these instances of expunging and restoration have not been devoid of controversy. Criticisms have arisen, with some accusing presiding officers of displaying partiality in their decisions. The Opposition, in particular, has raised concerns about the impartiality of these actions.
In essence, the Speaker's role in maintaining the sanctity of parliamentary debates through the expunging and restoration of remarks is a delicate balancing act. This practice reflects the continuous efforts to uphold the principles of transparency, decorum, and equality within the chambers of Indian democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment